Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Ah, so you're drawing a link between DCC, a group who have placed the words > Debian and Core in their name without considering the obvious consequences, > and the group of Debian folks in the UK who have decided that it was > reasonable to refer to themselves variously as debian-uk (as in the mailing > list) or more recently, and pretty much solely for the purposes of opening > a bank account, as "The Debian UK Society".
Well, there's a BIG similarity: * both took the debian name for business use without consent; and some differences, including: * DCC asked its members before counting them as members; * DCC itself looks loss-making, while DUS aims for break-even; * DCC probably won't be trading itself (but its members may want to trade on its name), while DUS is a trading business; * DUS claims the confusing brand "Debian-UK" as well as its name. DCC is less of a business than DUS by some measures! If DUS is solely for the purposes of opening a bank account, why the blue blazes do you need to have automatic membership and assert unrequested association with 70+ people? > [...] The issue of the bank account has > been discussed since June 2004, and you've contributed to the discussion > throughout, so claiming that this has been done in a precipitate manner is > just nonsense. There was a meeting announced simply as a Pub Meet in http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/debian-uk/2005-February/010223.html and then afterwards, it was announced in http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/debian-uk/2005-March/010251.html that all UK DDs are now members of this botched organisation. What were you thinking, besides "Mmm, beer."? > The closest you could probably get to claiming that anything has been done > in the name of The Debian UK Society would be this: > http://www.computerworld.dk/usarticles.asp?USArticleID=9894 > in which I was misquoted as having claimed to be "chairman ... of debian" > (Doh!), and then had my quotes mangled into ungrammatical English *sigh*. So, the appearance of "Phil Hands (Debian-UK)" on the schedules at http://www.affs.org.uk/affsac-2005.html was a drunken vision? (For those who know my past involvement with AFFS, I'd resigned, didn't organise the conference or that schedule.) Basically, if DUS keeps calling itself Debian-UK, this is likely to happen again and again and again. Maybe mistakes, but still going to be seen as Debian's actions. It's hard to correct errors in public comments: it's tricky to put toothpaste back in the tube. Simplest is for DUS not to name itself Debian-UK, however that's done. > Anyway, so far you seem to be crying in the wilderness about this (unlike > the DCC issue, which has attracted quite a lot of comment). This makes me > wonder at your motives. Your recent actions don't appear to be > particularly constructive. You've not been constructive either ("LaLaLa" indeed!) and I can't fix your organisation despite you. There's no need to wonder at my motives. I've written them several times: 1. I want no connection with DUS right now; including 2. I want DUS not to hold my personal details (especially not the inaccurate personal details it currently uses). How I see this can go forwards: a. DUS is repaired minimally, to be opt-in not opt-out, but your constitution offers no amendment, so I don't see how; b. willing DUS members reform as something sounder and don't try to contaminate other developers with their legal toys; or c. I slowly work through "Not In Our Name"-style tactics. Best wishes, -- MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
